Charlie Kirk Preliminary Hearing: What Doesn't Add Up?

Did we really hear the whole story?

After spending days watching the Charlie Kirk preliminary hearing, I walked away with more questions than answers.

In this episode of Melissa Unfiltered, I break down the testimony, evidence, witness statements, and courtroom moments that stood out to me and explain why I believe some parts of the case deserve a closer look.

If you've been following the Charlie Kirk case or you've only seen the headlines, this episode offers a deeper look at the preliminary hearing and the questions that remain.

If you enjoy thoughtful conversations that challenge assumptions and encourage critical thinking, subscribe to Melissa Unfiltered and join the discussion.

🎧 New episodes weekly. Subscribe so you don’t miss what’s coming next.

Social Links:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MelissaUnfilteredPodcast
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/melissaunfilteredpodcast

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Every single major case these days seems to be immediately divided into two sides. The side that hears what happened in the news and immediately agrees and wants to move on, and the side that has just a few more questions. And somehow the side with the questions becomes more controversial than the case itself. I'm talking about the murder of Charlie Kirk. I've spent the last several days watching the pretrial of Tyler Robinson who's being accused of murdering Charlie Kirk. Welcome back to Melissa Unfiltered. I've ever gotten it. Alright, you guys, welcome back. Thank you so much for being here. This has been a crazy week. I have spent countless hours tuning into the pretrial of Tyler Robinson. And the pretrial is not about deciding guilty or innocent. It essentially is a time for the judge and everyone to hear both sides and what evidence they have, and for the judge to decide if there's enough evidence to move forward with the trial. Essentially saying, yes, I think that we should have a trial. I think there's enough evidence here that makes sense, and we need to select a jury and move on with the case. Somehow, though, it is felt, I want to say this is the first time in my life, anyway, where it has felt like this pretrial has become a trial amongst people. I mean, people are fighting online, you get yelled at for asking questions, and I think it's just because of who Charlie Kirk was. So I want to take a minute here before we get into things and just give a remembrance to Charlie. You know, I remember exactly what I was doing when I found out that he was shot, and I was just completely at a loss for words, as so many are, and you know, I can't even put myself into the shoes of his wife or family or people closest to him. You know, I did not know him personally. The only interaction I ever had with Charlie Kirk was he spoke at one of my sisters' graduations for high school, and I remember really enjoying his commencement speech and thinking, wow, that's someone to watch. And that was quite some time ago. I think TPUSA was just getting started. Um, you know, Charlie was not a politician, but he did play a huge role in the MAGA movement, and I think ultimately really helped Donald Trump get elected this last time. He was an activist who believed that the next generation would shape the future of our country. And that's a pretty big deal. Um, in 2012, at just 18 years old, he founded TPUSA, which is incredible, and he would encourage students around college campuses to engage in politics and healthy debates and discussion. What started as a small organization grew into one of the most influential conservative youth organizations and movements in America, and it expanded across thousands of chapters across the country, hosted conferences, had political figures come on and talk, and had massive online presence and reach. So whether you agreed with Charlie's politics or not, I'm sure you can all admit that he did have a big influence on our current culture today and the political world as it stands in the United States. He's definitely one of the most recognizable voices in conservative politics and with young voters, and he was known for debating on issues. And I know so many people have a lot of opinions on that, but we are not here to talk about that today. Unfortunately, with all the opposing views, on September 10th, when he was speaking at the Utah Valley University College, he was shot and ultimately he died at the hospital. Not because it's not horrific what happened, but just because we had no direct connection to him or his family. But I think just knowing like what he stood for in terms of like wanting to have this movement and encourage young people and shape the generation that he has to watch something like that happen, it's just so evil. And again, you know, the topics I talk about a lot of times have a lot to do with evil things going on, and it just you know, that feeling still hasn't gone away. And I think even you know, with the Epstein stuff, and he was talking about that and changing his mind and viewpoints, it's just really scary to think that for someone speaking words that they can be killed because people don't agree with them. So I have quite extensive notes here, and I want to say I am by no means a journalist. I did not go to school for journalism, I don't have experience in that, so this is just my opinion from what I've taken in, my viewpoints, no one else's. I'm gonna try and give a little context from blips and pieces that I've heard online from both sides of people who think ultimately Tyler Robinson is guilty and people who think he's not, and there's something else going on. But I'm just gonna give you kind of my high-level overview, and I want to apologize if you feel that I got something wrong. I'm always going to admit if I get something wrong, so please feel free to come to the comments section, let me know what you think about this because I know it's a sensitive subject, and we all have a lot of opinions about it. And I have been following this case for a very long time, and a lot of people who have been investigating this case uh more so than our own government. So, um, okay. So, again, this is not the trial, this is just to decide does the state, the prosecution, have enough evidence for the judge to say, let's go to trial. And at this point, they are done with the five-day hearing, and the judge has said, I need more time, we're going back in September and I'll make up my mind. Now, my opinion is I think it's gonna go to trial. Um, there's a lot going on, and though there may be things I don't agree with from my own personal point of view, I don't see this case not going to trial. Um, I mean, you have people like Donald Trump Jr. in the audience the whole time, which is um crazy, you know, like he's there supporting Erica, and um, and I can't even imagine being his wife and having to sit through this, and that's just horrible, and no one no one should have to go through that. Um, so the first person who took the stand was Officer Chris Badgley. He is a UVU officer. Now, I want to say I this was hours and hours and hours worth of testimony and interviews, and a lot of it was like, I I've never watched this all before, but like the core details, what you really want, like the nitty-gritty stuff, I feel like they talk over for two seconds, and then all the like leading up to it, like what qualifies you to answer this question, just went on and on and on. Like, we had to hear so much about this officer and everywhere he's worked as a police officer, and how many years he's been doing it, and what his level was and what his rank was and all the certifications he's been through. So after hearing that, I'm like, okay, well, this is a well-trained officer. Like, certainly I'm not a police officer, I don't know all the rules and regulations. Um, did have my uncle was a police officer, that's like the extent of what I know. But there's certain things you can kind of assume that police officers would or wouldn't do. And again, come in the comments and let me know if I'm getting something wrong. But essentially, um, this Chris Badgley said they asked him if he was taking part in any interview that day, or not interview, I'm sorry, um, meeting that day since Charlie Kirk was there and it was a big event. Like, did they have a meeting with all the police officers to kind of go over like what you're supposed to do and with Charlie's security and all of that? And he said, no, it was busy. I just came right in and went to work and put his put his uniform on and went to work. He had to take care of someone who was throwing something. Um, and he said he was stationed again. I'm not familiar with like the campus, they explained it a million different ways to Sunday and talked about like east of here and south of there and west of there. It gets really just to be a lot, especially someone like me with ADD. I'm like, okay, come on, stay focused, Melissa. Um, but essentially he was where the flag building was, and that's that was his job. And so again, they spent all this time establishing where he was and what the buildings look like and showing him pictures and saying, Was this what the building looks like on that day? And then the defense would say, Well, how can he say that that's a picture of the building from that day if there's no time stamp on it and there's no date on it, and like he didn't take the picture. So I can already see the areas where they're gonna kind of come in, and that's valid, right? Anyone could show you a picture and say, I took this picture on this day, unless they have like the data to back it up. Um kind of important, I think, you know, to mention that. Um, but essentially he claims that he heard the shot go off, and he, because of his training, knew what kind of gun it was and heard, you know, it was a louder sound. He checked his area, everyone seemed okay, and then he just immediately runs off to the building that they're claiming, um, the Losy Center where Tyler Robinson they're claiming was, and he knew to run there and he knew to immediately go to the rooftop. I again, I'm not a police officer, he has lots of training, that could all be very true. I'm just saying, like, in my mind, as just a regular civilian listening to all this, I'm like, it sounds kind of weird. And if I'm thinking juries, I don't know, I watch a lot of like TV shows about law and crime and all this. I know it's not the same thing, but you start going, okay, that seems kind of weird. That, oh, I should back up for a moment. He did say that there was only six police officers that day, and the um defense said, Well, isn't that a little odd that you knew that there was gonna be thousands of people there and there was only six officers on duty? I tend to agree with that, but again, I don't know what their protocols are. Maybe that's he said that there's 15 of them total. Um, but yeah, I find that a little odd. I know Charlie had his own security, but thousands of college kids with a high-profile person who on the regular gets death threats. I would think you would need more than six police officers there, but that's what they had. So he that day just like by himself, runs to this building, goes to the top, and he has his body cam on, and then as he's going up to the top, or before he gets to the top, his body camera just it's dead. There's no more footage that day. Um, typically, I would think body cameras he claims like it charges at night on a stand. So I would say, like, why did it die? It's you know, again, these things, if I'm putting on like a tinfoil hat, I'm like, ooh, coincidence, right? Like Jeffrey Epstein, the camera just went out. Oh no, like, but again, it could have. So that's just my own questioning. Um, and he claims that they asked if he was up there by himself, and he said, No, there was another plainclosed man with a badge and a gun, and they asked him, Do you know this person's name? And he said no. And he said, Do you know if he was a police officer? And he said, No. So, in my mind, if I'm a police officer and I have all this experience that they have established in the beginning of this um questioning or interviewing, I would think as a police officer in the big like a crime scene and active shooter, and you know, Charlie Kirk just got shot, and you're going on a roof and you're securing things, and there's just this guy who you have no idea who he is, and you just like let him up there with you, and you don't ask his name or questions or anything. That part felt really weird. Again, I don't have any speculation as to what that can mean. It just stop it was weird to me. I heard that and I was just like, weird. Um, he also said he didn't see the shooting, like he did not see a person on the roof shooting a gun. So, you know, that's that was his kind of the main thing here. Um seeing if I have any other notes from him. Let's see here. Day one, Officer Badgley. Yeah, so I don't know, he just and I don't want to go at anyone's character, but I don't know. I just look at him, I'm like, this is the best they got. Like, and again, it makes me sad for the family who's sitting there thinking, like, this is the person who killed my husband, and this is what they told me happened, and they want this person to be brought to justice, and then you have this guy on the stand saying, I you know, I don't know who this guy is, and my body camera died. And oh, he claims he found the screwdriver up there. He also claimed that he saw what was a prone position imprint in the dirt on top where the sniper would be. He was very clear about that. They showed a photo, it could just be the live stream. I really couldn't make out anything from the photo, but again, I'm not a police officer. He's like, I know guns and this and that, and went on and on about his qualifications for knowing that there was, you know, a sniper print of a body in the prone position on top of the building and a footprint in the grass. Like, I don't know, I don't typically notice footprints in the grass, but maybe he did. And then the screwdriver, he said the screwdriver to assemble the rifle or disassemble. I have no idea because no one can clear that up. Um, but again, his body camera footage wasn't working, so there's no way to verify that. It's just you're credible, you're a police officer, which I mean there does have to be credibility for people. Um, but I found that interesting. I was like, if this is the like their guy who is supposed to, you know, say, I have the I have the information, this is what happened. So when I go into the other side and I'm thinking like defense or I'm thinking like a jury, you know, you start questioning, well, like if his body camera didn't work and he says this, well, how do I trust this guy? Like, could could a screwdriver have been laid down up there? I'm not saying that happened, but I'm just saying that to me, in my mind, my opinion, it's my podcast, I can say what I want, is that I don't think that that was enough evidence. It felt weird to me. So then they moved on to um Agent David Hull, who was the lead investigator or is the lead investigator on this case, is what they're saying. Um David Hull has a bit of an accent. I don't know where he's from, but he definitely sounds like he's like from the UK or something. And they start going over the timeline with him, and they start going over some of the video surveillance, is what they introduce. And he, I don't know who cropped the videos, but they never just show raw footage, and we were not allowed to see all the footage. There was stuff that they wanted redacted. Now I know the Kirk family wants everything shown because this is such a public thing and they don't want there to be any questions. And I I agree with that. Um, but I'm not a prosecutor, I'm not a judge. I their reasoning behind was um making sure that the jury pool doesn't get tainted, but I think everyone around the world is talking about this, so that's gonna be kind of hard to find an unbiased jury, in my opinion. But um, so they go through this video footage and they're like, here is Tyler Robinson in the stairwell, and you know, they're showing different outfits and people with he has a hat on and sunglasses, they show a his car supposedly. All I saw was a bunch of videos with me questioning, how can I even tell that that's Tyler Robinson? Now I did just hear today someone being interviewed outside the courtroom after it ended, and he said, Oh, it's all when you're in the courtroom, it's 4K and we can make it out, and it's clear as day, you can see that it's him. There's no question. That could be true. I don't know, but the videos that they're showing us are very grainy, blurry. You cannot tell who they are. There's even people on the internet kind of using different markings on the building as like measurements to see like how tall the person they're claiming in the video is, and they say Tyler Robinson's like 5'10, and some of the videos, um, some of the people that they depict in the video they're claiming look like they're 6'2 or whatever. They notice like the nose is different, the hairline's different. Um, then they show a video of supposedly him walking in a stairwell limping, like as if he's carrying this 30 odd six rifle in his um leg. Then he switches legs, and then he does bend the leg at one point. So to me, again, I'm looking at that going, like, there's people out there arguing, like, didn't you see that? Didn't you see the videos? And I'm arguing back, I'm like, yeah, I don't I don't want to make a guilty man innocent. That's not what I'm saying. But like I watched the video too, or we did we watch the same video? Like, he switched legs and then he bent the leg and then forgot and then straightened the leg again. And I can't even tell who this person is. So if that's like their big gotcha, it's like, see, there's something in the leg. I mean, you can't prove that that's a gun if there is something, then they're that's it could be a freaking broomstick for all I know. It could be a baseball bat, it could be nothing. Seems like nothing to me based on watching it, but again, my opinion. So, this lead investigator, they're asking them all these questions, and that you know, they went over all of the timeline, and there was gaps missing from some of the videos. I think one of the videos had like a minute and 16 seconds missing. Um, one of them didn't show time stamps, and I think that's a pretty big deal. I mean, you need to show time stamps, and also I I would like to see just for my own, I know they wouldn't like show this in the court, or maybe they would in the trial, I would like to see some videos from that campus, not on that day. Like, I want to see supposedly they have thousands of cameras on that campus, and someone else was saying that there's flock cameras nearby. I have no idea if that's true or not. Um, but I would like to see video footage from other days, the quality of those cameras. Like if they always look like that, or if it was just that day that they looked like that. I'm very curious to know what the videos look like. I think maybe someone's looked into that already, but you should be able to tell if there's a true discrepancy, if someone feels like the videos were messed with or changed or altered in order to, you know, cover something up. I'm not saying that that's what happened, but that's you know something I would want to see. I'll probably go look into that because, and also like where all the cameras are on campus, there has to be a map. There's got to be someone in charge at that school who's got a map of where all the cameras are, and they can be able to look at our campus. This is where all the cameras are, and this is what they record. Because I just think it's crazy that they have a video of supposedly Tyler Robinson walking up the stairs and then onto the building and getting in position, but no video of him taking the shot. And then they have video of again, supposedly Tyler Robinson running off the building, jumping, and running away. How are they missing that taking the shot? That part doesn't make sense unless, again, in my mind, you're covering something up and that's not what really happened. Like, I don't understand why they don't have that video. And let me go back to my notes here. There was a part on either day two or three, I can't remember exactly which day, where um Judge Tony Graff, they were talking over some of the stuff, and he could have just been referencing what they were discussing. But he said, So is there, I don't remember, he said, is there a video or do you plan on showing a video? I think he said, Do you have the video of the person actually firing the shot? Something along those lines. Um, don't quote me. On that exact, I should have had that clip pulled up because when I heard him say that and then they answered no, I was like, wait a second, so they don't even have a video of him taking the shot. Like I would certainly hate to send an innocent man. I am not saying he's innocent, but like if this is all it takes to send someone to the potentially the death penalty, that is scary. I mean, there needs to be evidence, and someone does need to go down for this. Again, I feel horrible for the family. I'm not trying to pile on anything to his family. Like, we don't believe you. That is not what I'm saying. I just if I'm a juror and I'm hearing this, I would have a hard time being like, yes, he's guilty with just what I saw in this pretrial. Now, again, I am unfamiliar, like maybe they save evidence for the trial because they don't want people talking about it between now and then. That's what I would think that they could have more evidence. But also during the this pretrial, to decide if they're gonna go to trial, they kind of lay out the big stuff that they have because the judge could say, Hey, I don't think you have enough evidence, and this is we're done. You're not going to trial. Again, I don't think that's gonna happen just because of how big and public the case is. I just don't think, regardless if he even if the judge thought they don't have enough, I still think he would send it to trial because like someone would come for him. Um okay, so then you've got the DNA forensic analyst who uh she was going over the bullet fragments that they found in Charlie Kirk, and she could not confirm that those matched the bullets that came out of Tyler Robinson's gun. She couldn't confirm that they were or weren't. Um, and then there was some other bullet fragments. So to me, right there, that like says a lot. Like, okay, well, if they can't confirm that, I mean, I also totally from the beginning have said, I don't know guns that well, but I know guns well enough. Like my husband uh loves collecting guns and shooting, and I have seen videos, they show videos. You can just go on YouTube and look up, you know, 30 odd six. There's people who have done these videos to show what it would do. They they put from the same range that they're claiming he was shot, like up on a roof at the same angle, and they took like what would be a neck and did the whole experiment. It decapitates the person, like it blows their head off. So I really just don't can't. Number one, regardless of all this other information that I've just given you, I have never subscribed in my mind to the theory that that is what happened, and he was shot with that gun and that bullet because his head would have been blown off. Like, I don't think he's Superman and had like strong bones and stopped something. Now, God can work miracles, so you know. It just would be crazy, um, is all I'm saying. So I there was a video of it shooting like through three cast iron pans. I mean, this is a neck, like you just push on your neck, it's so delicate. Um, so that has always been trouble for me before any of this went on, any of the evidence, even if they showed him taking the shot, like I was like having a hard time wrapping my brain around how they say that happened when it's just right here. Also, I have seen the video from behind. When you watch the video footage from behind Charlie Kirk, that the video that's online, I'm not saying it who knows, it could have been altered, but the video that came from the camera that was behind him, there is no blood. There is no blood. He gets shot. You see the shot, you see his body move, the shirt puff up, no blood in the back at all, not one drop anywhere. So again, I have a hard time with you know, it was that bullet, and the DNA evidence is lining up to say, yeah, that's that's accurate. So um, again, I you know, see the news and I see people going online and saying, case closed, we have all these piles of evidence. And again, I'm like, where are the piles of evidence? I don't see piles of evidence, okay? I again, we're in two sides here, and I'm in the side that doesn't see piles of evidence, and that's awful and sad, and I feel horrible for his family because of that. Um then they get into the digital evidence, these text messages. Um, if you've been watching this or following this for a while, there were text messages that were released that they claim are text messages between Tyler Robinson and Lance Twiggs, which they say was his like lover, boyfriend, roommate who he was living with. Um, and Lance Twiggs claims, you know, he sent me these text messages that sound like this crazy love letter. To me, it doesn't sound like 20-some-year-old guys, but you know, stranger things, right? People talk all different kinds of way. I'm I can't just like I can't say that those aren't real. I can't say that they are because there's no timestamps, there's no data from that. They the officer literally said that he took a picture with his phone of these messages. Now, something I know most of you would know is if you have a device and you're logged in at multiple places, like my iPhone and my MacBook and my iPad, they all link up. And you could log in on someone else's phone. Um, I'm pretty sure it's the same with Android. So anyone technically could log in and make those messages. I'm I'm just saying, like again, arguing both sides here. Like to me, text messages are not a slam dunk, especially without like proof of exactly where he was and that he was sending them. There's gotta be a better way to get that data than what we've been shown. And they could be waiting for the trial to show that because again, they don't want the jury to hear it. Um, so that could be something that's coming. I don't know. And then these weird Discord messages, and then there was a note, like a weird little handwritten note, but none of that proves. I mean, people admit to doing things that they didn't do. I've seen it before. So for some odd reason, if they're promised something, or I don't know. I'm not saying that happened, but um that's what what they had. All right, let me see what else do we have here. Um okay, then they had Lance Twiggs interview. Now, Lance Twiggs was given immunity almost immediately, which I find incredible because his DNA is on the same items that Tyler Robinson's DNA is on. So I don't know how they so quickly just decided from like day one that Lance Twiggs is innocent and he has immunity. I'm not the lead investigator, I'm not involved here, but that still doesn't sit right with me. And they've only had him in twice the first time he came in, right when this all happened, and then they had him come in and do an interview on camera. They're not gonna have him, they say, appear in court, which I also find really weird. Like he's claiming all these things. I think he should be interviewed in court. Seems pretty odd to me, and they were only playing some of the video for the court. Um, they were worried about different amendment rights and protecting Lance Twiggs and tainting the jury. But from what I heard, it was a lot of him just like agreeing to things, it wasn't a lot of him specifically talking. Um, but I don't know the full context of the interview other than what they've said in court. And, you know, I would hate to be like, someone says I did something, and then that's what they go on, and you know, you go to jail for that. That seems a bit crazy to me, but this is what some people are referring to as slam dunk evidence. Also, I should say, um, Tyler Robinson's parents brought him in, but nowhere do we see anywhere them saying like he admitted he's guilty. They did say they saw him on TV, that image, and then so they're like, okay, you should go in for questioning. And basically, what I've heard from other people who've interviewed the parents is that the only reason they went in is because they told like the feds were gonna storm their house and like crash in the windows and doors and like you know, come in and take him. So they're like, well, if they're gonna do that anyway, we might as well go in. I have not heard him say, yes, I murdered Charlie Kirk, I'm guilty, I'm turning myself in. That is not, people are misconstruing what happened. Um, so we don't have any other information than that. Um, something else worth noting was they did find another bullet on the top of another building, and they claim, I believe it was the first, um, let me go here. Uh, Officer Badgley, who said that he was told, or I don't remember if it was him. Gosh, you guys, there was so much. There was so much. But anyway, an officer, they were told that a bullet was found on another roof, and they weren't concerned about it because someone said it was an officer cycling his weapon. Now, again, I'm not a police officer, but I'm gonna just take a guess here that when you go to your training to become a police officer and they teach you how to cycle your weapon, and a live bullet pops out, you don't just leave it and walk away. Like you go looking for that bullet because that's your bullet and you have to be accountable for it. So that was just weird that they just have this story and can't tell you whose bullet it was or what officer it was or where that information came from, but they're not worried about it. Nothing to see here. Um, another thing, the lead investigator was asked about, so I don't know if many of you knew this, but I think it was about 48 hours after Charlie Kirk had been murdered, the entire grounds where he was shot was completely the dirt, it was all removed, all the soil was taken out, and pavers were put in. They took out all the concrete, they took everything out and completely revamped that whole area. And the lead investigator said he had no idea that that was happening. And when in another video, not in court, the guy who was involved, one of the contractors involved in doing this, said he was told by the governor's office and the FBI not to tell anyone and that this was top priority and it needed to happen right away. I'm not sure why they felt the need to like completely pave over where he was shot less than 48 hours. I'm no expert again on police work, but typically crime scenes are pretty important to preserve for evidence. And it seems to me like they were just so in a rush to slam dunk, we got the guy, we're all done, nothing to see here, let's wrap this up with a nice bow on it. I I think that's odd. That that's so odd. And the lead investigator said he had no idea and he found out from TV. You know, that's just weird, and that was not scheduled, it was not already scheduled. There was people saying, Oh, that was already planned and scheduled. No, it wasn't. So that's pretty much my key takeaways so far. I'm sure that you know, there was more people talking about DNA, and um, they had several other people that they interviewed, but those were the main significance, uh, significant things that I saw. Sorry, I'm just pulling up all my notes here. So um, let's see. Yeah, so my main questions are like, why did they pave over? Why do they have no video of the shot being taken? Why does Lance Twiggs have immunity? He had access to all the same things, you know, they lived together. He could have easily changed his text messages or anything. Um, if he confessed to his parents, why haven't we heard from them? Like, why are his parents not out there talking about this? Oh, and one more thing: the video that they showed in court, I'm sure there's more video, but the video they showed in court of Tyler turning himself in when he comes into this room to be interviewed, you don't see his face. He's just his back is facing the camera, and um that's all they show us. I don't know why that's all they show us. It feels very intentional, it feels odd, there was no time stamp on there. They talk a lot about times of when times things happen and when time when they were interviewed. Um, so you know, those are the the main things. I I will say it's getting pretty crazy on the internet with different people talking about different things. You know, you have people like Candace Owens who have been investigating this. She was a close friend of Charlie Kirk, and she's been digging in and investigating, and she is a journalist, and I can't appreciate you know the work and the questioning. You know, if your best friend gets shot, and you're like, what the heck? I'm in a similar situation where I come out and talk to people about politics and culture, and you know, that can be scary. Um, Baron Coleman has done a lot of work. There are so many people online. I know that Ian Carroll has a website called theweb.io where you can log in and subscribe and get all the video footage. You can type in a question and it just pulls the exact footage with the source. Those are really good places to get your information. Please do not get your information about this from watching a 30 or 60 second clip on the news of like someone saying this is what happened. I mean, the news outlets on both sides are incredibly biased. If you truly want to know what's going on, you have to spend the time going through this stuff or figure out who is actually going through this stuff because the stuff that I'm hearing on the news, and nothing drives me more insane than when someone tries to have a conversation with me about this and argue me on this when they literally just pay attention for 60 seconds and go, Well, what about this? What about that? And all they're saying to me is like sound bites from the news, like this person's crazy, or this person said that. I don't want to have a conversation with you if you haven't put in the time to go through this. Um, so be careful out there where you're getting your information from. Again, these are just my opinions and my overview. I'm not a journalist, but I think it's important that we have these conversations, and I will continue to stay um up on this one and keep you guys informed. Um so on that, that's all I have for now, and I will be following along when it comes back in September. But I do want to let you all know um on another note that I'm very excited to be interviewing Senator Darby Hills, and we are going to be going over that bill that we worked on together that she brought forward in Illinois and talk about uh what's going on in politics. So that will be coming up as well. I look forward to having dialogue with all of you about this Charlie Kirk episode. So please comment, like, subscribe, and let me know what you think. Have a great day, guys. Melissa Unfiltered is a Delac Media Group production.